Is there a violation of due process and equal protection under the 5th and 14th amendments as related to 42 U.S.C. 1983, when a municipality fails to comply with the appropriate local statutes, for purposes of transparency, the public interest, and the Constitutional rights of the individual(s) who have a protected interest at stake in a matter, at the time of transferring that matter from and between the trial court and the appellate court, to the highest court of the state, which creates a right to be heard in federal court that is independent of the state court?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner filed a complaint in federal district court against City of New York, for denying Ward, notice, service of process and an opportunity to be heard ; by the City’s Attorneys in addition to their use of perjured affirmations and no filings in the New York County Clerk’s Office prior to the finalization of the deprivation of Ward’s property, in state court. The District Court, swa sponte dismissed the complaint without any responsive pleadings or motions; 2nd Circuit affirmed with a summary order. In 2nd Circuit proceedings defendants’ (again) used perjured affirmations, commercial metering ma: chines in lieu of U.S.P.S. and failed to follow the rules for using summary orders as citations, and the 2nd Circuit failed to rule on Ward’s objections. THE Ist QUESTION: : 1. Is there a violation of due process and equal protection under the 5th and 14th amendments as related to 42 U.S.C. 1983, when a municipality, fails to comply with the appropriate local statutes, for purposes of transparency, the public interest, and the Constitutional rights of the individual(s) who have a protected interest at stake in a matter, at ; : the time of transferring that matter from and between the trial court and the appellate court, to the highest court of the state, which creates a right : to be heard in federal court that is independent of the state court? ii : TWO (2) QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued THE 2nd QUESTION: 2. Is there a violation of due process and equal protection of the law under the Constitution when ; a federal appellate court sets aside appelilant’s motions that object to the defendants’ attorneys’ ; violation of service by their use of commercial metering machines in the proceedings, as a U.S. post office substitute that prejudice appellant’s time to answer, as well as defendants’ attorneys’ failure to ; comply with the rules for citing summary orders with respect to unrepresented litigants?